Will Citizens United Sound the Death Knell for American Democracy

              Robert A. Levine    5-31-12

It may come off as hype even talking about the end of democracy in America, but one has to wonder about that as the repercussions of the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court become more evident. America’s democracy has survived many hits in the past, but it’s possible this one could be a knock-out blow. And once down on the mat, democracy may not be able to get up again.

This consideration was raised by a recent Politico article reporting that Republican Super PACs will spend a billion dollars to try and elect their candidates in this election cycle. (http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=482f87de1d55a93ceaa04945cb513295628728e3a741d9bd5de4fba222ff3263) These are not grass-roots organizations, but groups financed by a few big donors. For example, groups linked to the Koch brothers will spend about $400 million alone, organizing operations in important districts and states.

Now, there are those who will say ‘so what,’ and that campaign spending is like a popularity contest, where candidates with the most appeal raise the most money. And that the Democrats can also try and generate as much money as they can if they want to make the races more competitive.  And that money and campaign ads don’t determine the way people vote. And that Obama spent three quarters of a billion dollars on the last presidential campaign anyway.

In relation to the last argument, the money Obama raised and spent on his campaign was through his own organization and he vetted and was responsible for the messages that emerged. With the plethora of Super PACs now sprouting all over the landscape, extremely wealthy people can issue their own messages as they attempt to influence elections, often anonymously and with no constraints on what is said or how much money is donated.  They can distort opponents’ messages, say things out of context or with only a kernel of truth, or frankly lie or make up stories, with no one and no governmental agency to take them to task.

By buying up enough air time in major markets in the swing states, they can completely dominate the political dialogue in the presidential campaigns, restricting the ability of opponents to respond over the airways and drowning out any counterthrusts. These kingmakers can similarly impact Congressional and Senatorial races with their money, electing men and women with worldviews comparable to their own, thus being able to determine governmental policy.

Unfortunately, this control of the electoral process can become self-perpetuating, extinguishing the vestiges of democracy.  Instead of free and open elections, America could undergo a transition to a plutocracy, where the very wealthy have the power and make the rules. The only way this can be averted is if common sense limitations on campaign spending by individuals and corporations are instituted again. But how can this happen if our elected representatives, along with the president and Supreme Court are opposed to any restrictions?

Economic inequality in America will grow even worse in the future, as the tax laws and regulations are further shaped to favor the rich. And this will be more than matched by the disproportionate political power of the rich. If these Super PACs are allowed to continue to control the discourse, any semblance of fairness that remains in political campaigns and elections will vanish.

Some see a negative legacy from George W. Bush’s presidency as a result of the Iraq War and tax laws that increased the nation’s budget deficits.  However, I believe his enduring legacy will be his nominations to the Supreme Court, with its Citizen’s United ruling that gave control of the political process to the extremely wealthy.

James Madison noted in The Federalist Papers- “We may define a republic to be… a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people…not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class.” We are now moving away from this vision for our republic and whether or not this trend can be reversed remains a question.

Resurrecting Democracy
http://www.robertlevinebooks.com/

The Federal Election Commission and Citizens United

                                  Robert A. Levine  

 With the increasing role Super PACs are playing in the 2012 Republican primaries, and will play in the general election, isn’t there some entity to police the donation of unlimited funds to these groups and make these donations more transparent? Theoretically, for awhile, there was; the Federal Election Commission (F.E.C.).

 Congress established the F.E.C. in 1974 as an independent regulatory agency. Its mission was to enforce the provisions of campaign finance law for federal elections, including the public disclosure of information, the limits and prohibitions on contributions, as well as to supervise the public funding of presidential campaigns.
To insure a balanced political approach by the Commission (as well as future gridlock), it was to consist of six members, with no more than three permitted from the same party, and with four votes necessary for any action. The Commission was structured this way to supposedly ensure bipartisan, or nonpartisan, rulings, (and to be certain that no decisions would be overly detrimental to either of the two major parties). The members were to be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve six year terms, with a rollover of two new appointees every two years.

Critics of the F.E.C. point to the balance between Republicans and Democrats as being responsible for its inability to force adherence to campaign finance regulations over the years and for seeming to be supportive of the interests of the two major parties. When the Commission has acted, it is usually long after the fact, the elections being over and the winners ensconced in their offices, the penalties often minor. Currently complicating the picture, the terms of five of the six F.E.C. commissioners have expired. Though President Obama could appoint new members, Senate Republicans would undoubtedly block their confirmation.

 The original Federal Election Campaign Act in 1971 along with its subsequent amendments produced guidelines with the objective of legally limiting campaign contributions. As ways to evade these regulations were found, a further attempt to control runaway contributions, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (McCain-Feingold) was enacted. This was subsequently emasculated by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United decision two years ago.

 The impotence of the F.E.C. and indeed any government agency to limit campaign contributions has become more evident (and tragic) since the Citizens United ruling. Special interest money has been surging into so-called Super-PACs and independent organizations, some of them masquerading as social welfare advocates, to run attack ads against political opponents. The Supreme Court held that unlimited contributions by corporations and unions, as well as wealthy individuals, to these so-called “independent” organizations are permissible, based on the concept that political spending was a form of free speech. The use of 501(c)(4) non-profit affiliates by these organizations allows some donors to remain anonymous while they covertly influence elections with vast amounts of money. In those SuperPACs where donors are revealed periodically, it is often after the election has taken place, so that voters are not aware of where the money in support of a candidate came from.

 While the F.E.C. can still monitor and limit contributions that go directly to political parties and candidates, unrestricted spending on campaigns by outside organizations makes this power of scant value. It is possible that SuperPACs and independent groups will collect and spend more during the current election cycle than the candidates and the political parties themselves, as occurred in the media blitz during the recent Florida G.O.P. primary. The ability of these organizations, by utilizing special interest money, to shape politics in America is a grave threat to the democratic process.

 The impotence of the F.E.C. to control campaign spending is another symptom of the dysfunction in Washington. The two parties continue to be unable or unwilling to agree on how to bring the nuclear arms race of campaign financing under control. Unfortunately, overturning Citizens United may take a constitutional amendment or a change in the composition of the Supreme Court, both of which seem unlikely. Until Americans understand the ramifications of Citizens United and pressure politicians to limit the influence of special interest money, spending on federal elections can be expected to escalate indefinitely.

 Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com